Glad to hear you deny the suspicions brought on by my paranoia. However, you have to understand. It happens fairly often that an anti (a.k.a. "Troll") will come on this website and post a similar question. Not to learn or expand their knowledge, but to re-educate TFL members as to our wrong mindset. So I apologize for taking an immediate defensive position.

That being said, you will find many helpful people here on TFL. Despite the negative comments, I think many have already given you great advice about where to start. Most of it centers around getting some kind of training and having a basic understanding of your local/state law. Start with a basic firearms class and work your way up to a defensive shooting course. Read, read, read, and read some more. You won't find one single document that gives you a step by step process of assessing when it is justified to use lethal force. You will, however, find opinions and real life events that can shape your mindset.

Before you have to use any of these new found skills from your training and the knowledge amassed from your studies, some of the best advise is to be aware of your surroundings. Be cautious and observant. Stay near other people or simply leave the area.

If you haven't used the feature, search TFL. Specifically the "Tactics and Training" section. Ask more questions here, but understand that you will hear over and over the same statements as you witnessed in this thread. Be aware of your surroundings, leave the situation, be in imminent danger with no escape before drawing and firing, etc.

Finally...welcome to TFL. Stick around and you will find that we aren't all as bad as I initially came off. At least the other guys here aren't as bad as I am.

Fly

__________________I told my wife I was scheduling a mid-life crisis. It was either a Harley or guns. Secretly, I've already decided on guns. :-)

It seems to me that there are some here who need to enroll in a refresher course for CCW education.

There is only "rule" regarding DRAWING your weapon. You can legally draw your weapon if you have a reasonable expectation that you may need to use your weapon in order to protect yourself of someone else from bodily harm. But you had better know your state and locality's brandishing laws forwards and backwards...and you had better be the first dialing 911 to report a weapons incident.

If your life is in jeopardy and wait until those three criteria are meet, you may be dead before you can draw your weapon. Those three rules that were listed in previous posts are the (general) criteria that need to be meet in order to pull the trigger.

Get out of the car taking your keys go to the station office and if it's needed have them cal 911 for you, you don't need to display the weapon yet. If he pulls a knife and advances that's different. If he has no weapon get certified for pepper spray. Anytime you use pepper spray or pull your weapon CALL THE POLICE and do it first. If he calss them and says you sprayed him or brandished a firearm at him and you haven't called the police first your going to be looked on as the bad guy.

That's good advice. Distance and attention are your friends. One might recommend to start shouting : Police, call the police, get away from me!

Establish you are the victim and retreat.

One hidden suggestion in this is that you are in a Tueller Drill scenario but without clear indication of a weapon, direct threats with a giant disparity in force - it would be hard to justify opening fire.

Don't have a focus on the gun - everything is a nail, when you draw a hammer - so to speak.

This also speaks as others have to get training that includes the continuum of responses and not just handgun usage. Mindset, tactics, AOJP, ADEE - etc. should be part of your mental armory.

Maybe the car was a bad example. I see posts here all of the time where people say they had to draw on someone. An example, which I'm mostly just recalling from memory: a guy is walking through parking lot and notices someone shady walking towards him. he tells the guy to stop and the guy continues to slowly walk towards him. at this point, the weapon is drawn.

now, were the actions of the CCW holder correct in the scenario I posted above?

if so, what happens if the person continues to advance, up to the point where they can fight you for your weapon?

Maybe the car was a bad example. I see posts here all of the time where people say they had to draw on someone. An example, which I'm mostly just recalling from memory: a guy is walking through parking lot and notices someone shady walking towards him. he tells the guy to stop and the guy continues to slowly walk towards him. at this point, the weapon is drawn.

now, were the actions of the CCW holder correct in the scenario I posted above?

if so, what happens if the person continues to advance, up to the point where they can fight you for your weapon?

I didn't draw the weapon, I just thought about it real hard. And he wasn't moving slowly by any means.

Lots of folks have used justified deadly force only to have their lives ruined in civil court. Just because one is within the bounds of criminal law doesn't mean you won't be dragged into court. In the first scenario if the guy wants your car, let him have it. You have insurance for that. What is the deductible on your policy? $500? $1000? How much legal representation do you think you can buy for that?

In scenario number two you have shown the bad guy your weapon. You have commanded him to stop. He has not so you have a reasonable fear for your life or health. Shoot him.

__________________
Sure animals got rights. They got the right to butter and garlic. -Ted Nugent

If you draw. This does not equate to you have to shoot. Drawing is a sequence in stepping up the need to respond to a situation.

For obvious reasons, if you draw the level of threat is great. But if the bad guy (BD) runs away you don't shoot. But on the other hand if they keep coming then that's the next step. Shoot if you have to.

Just remember for every action there is a responsibility or consequence to those actions.

----
Yes, do take a class on the legal issues surrounding concealed carry in your state. It's good to know the basics of your state laws and be familiar with the legal intent of "lethal force."

When I went to the police basic school, oh so many years ago, they had a drill using video and a push button. The camera was your eyes, and the button the trigger of your sidearm. You would go through several senarios and you had to decide if you could shoot or not. By the end of the drill everybody in the class was shooting anyone they saw in the video!. One of the senarios was you were approached in a parking lot by a bruiser of a man
who would not stop when warned several times. He did not display a weapon, but kept on coming. Turns out he was deaf..The point is you are on your own when you pull the trigger, police officer or civilian. If you can retreat ..retreat.
The best advice I have read here,( including mine), is go get some serious training!
Regards,
TomD

Just remember if you point a gun at a deaf person (but they can see) they're not likely to approach you for whatever reason.

If they're blind then how would they know to approach you - if they can hear then your screaming at them would deter them too.

There are a lot of variable and factors that come in. Situational awareness is a key. Know is happening and be aware of it.

Retreating does have a legal and logical aspect but you can only retreat so much before you lose tactical superiority even with a gun.

So, on the other hand don't shoot if the guy is 100 ft away. If they get close enough to you... what is too close. Below 25 ft. You have to remember our normal space boundary is about 6 feet. Most shootings I've heard is about 21 feet (7 yards). Why? A man running can be on you within less than 2 seconds. This is too close.

The "Castle Doctine" comes into play a bit. Might want to research what that means. Just Google it and you'll find a lot of info.

now, were the actions of the CCW holder correct in the scenario I posted above?
if so, what happens if the person continues to advance, up to the point where they can fight you for your weapon?

No, the actions are not correct. The person has as much right to be there as you do. You don't get to threaten people and brandish weapons just because you don't like it that they are doing something totally legal. It is not illegal to walk towards you, it is not illegal to ignore people without any authority over you who are giving you orders, it is not illegal to to walk within a few inches of someone else. If you pull out your gun and point it at him, you are probably the one committing the crime and he is probably legally allowed to use deadly force against you to stop your actions.

The scenario was in a parking lot (most likely empty) and a strange guy approaches. You feel threatened and warn him off. He continues advancing and more threatening.

Yes, people are free to roam all over the place but not be threatening to others. There is a "social" distance typically about 6 feet in semi crowded areas and if more crowded mere inches but that's usually in a crowded auditorium or elevator. In an empty parking lot that's a whole different animal.

Are you a defense attorney because this BG has more rights than the good citizen just taking care of their business.

Back to point. Would a reasonable citizen feel threated by an approaching person when there is obviously other routes this person can take rather than straight at you. Yes. So, who is in the wrong here. The good citizen has asked for the other to comply and be less threatening. In this scenario they have not and have actually indicated to be someone more threatening, therefore, the need to escualate the response has increased. etc, etc.

It's a two sided road we live in. But a good citizen would avoid the situation and not threaten others. Also, if I was the guy walking and someone was asking me to walk someplace else and I can see I was causing that person fear - what would a respectable citizen do. Provoke or just go around?

The scenario was in a parking lot (most likely empty) and a strange guy approaches. You feel threatened and warn him off. He continues advancing and more threatening.

Let's look at what was said: "he tells the guy to stop and the guy continues to slowly walk towards him." Sorry, but you are going to have a hard time explaining what is threatening about somebody walking slowly toward you. So we have a guy that walks slowly toward you, he's dressed sort of shabby, he has every right to be where he is and walk where he is walking, and he isn't impressed when you start trying to scare him by threatening him. I think you'll have a hard time explaining to a group of reasonable people why you needed to draw a gun in the first place, much less threaten him with it.

Quote:

Are you a defense attorney because this BG has more rights than the good citizen just taking care of their business.

No, they both have the same rights. He has as much right to be there as you do. He is not a BG, he has done nothing illegal.

Quote:

Dave, Would you go forward when a person is obviously afraid of you?

Perhaps. Why is he afraid? Is his fear rational? Why should I have to alter my choice of pathway because somebody is leaping to conclusions? Lots of folks (not saying I would) will push situations like that simply because their dignity has been offended, or for other reasons.

I think that it would be helpful to clarify on some points of the parking lot scenario.

1. What time is it? Possibly very important.
2. Is the parking lot nearly empty, or very crowded?
3. Are you between him and any possible destinations of his?

No matter how these questions are answered, I would say that the subject should try to move out of the approaching individual's way first, then if the individual alters his or her course to correspond with the subject's new position, that's where it starts getting dicey. In the case that that happens:

1. Can you arrive at your vehicle before him?
2. Can you get into some kind of public establishment before him?
3. Are there bystanders nearby who may assist in some way?

Honestly, no matter how these questions are answered, I can only imagine a narrow scope of possibilities in which the subject should draw, at least if it were me. I am operating under the assumption that the person is reasonable and the assumption that a reasonable person has "not shooting another individual" high on his or her priority list.

Basically, there is not enough information for anyone to give a straightforward answer to the question of "Should I draw and/or shoot in this situation."

Also, I agree that if you are going to draw a handgun, you better be prepared to use it, although that doesn't mean that you will use it. Isn't it true that most Defensive Gun Use occurrences did not involve the discharge of a firearm? That is not a rhetorical question, I cannot remember if that is true or not . I seem to remember some people on this forum posting that... Oh well, please give more information on the hypothetical if you want more straightforward answers.

The statistics of how much a handgun has deterred crime is not something you can easily trace as it goes from a preventative rather than a statistical number.

Let's say a robbery has happened 5 times in the last week. 2 times a gun was used, 2 times a knife and 1 unknown. How can you track how many times a crime was prevented? You can't trace that.

NRA has some numbers but I believe most all are in agreement that there is vastly large number of crimes that have been prevented in some degree by citizens (some are armed).

Just by some good citizen stepping in and saying that they're calling the cops.

------------

Sorry went off a tangent there.

So back to the parking lot scenario. All those factors comes into play. I mean if it's crowded than one simply would have to yell out for help, right? Attracts attention and deters BG's from doing bad things. On the other hand. Let's say your closing the store and it's midnight. No one is out there except you two. It's dark.

Your in the country, isolated on some farm.... Just kidding on the last one.

Situational awareness comes back.

Your car is down the block and he's catching up to you. I mean we can get really silly here with all the scenarios.

Have you ever read a transcript from a court case? It's very dry. It just a print out what people said. Nothing else. Now have you ever heard of (listened to) a court case - very different. The nuances of what people say and what they say are waaaaay different.

I bring this up because reading David's assessment kinda reminds me of a lawyer - a defense lawyer. Oh, this robber has every right to be there tooo. Oh, the robber was just minding his own bussiness when this man "attacked him" Come on. We're talking about a parking lot in the dark, alone. Not at the mall in Nordstroms in the shoe section.

I fail to see either of those qualfiers in the scenario as first posted.

Quote:

We're the good guys here right?

Perhaps. The other guy could be just as much a good guy as you, me, or others. When you start pulling out gins and threatening others who are not doing anything wrong, your good guy status becomes suspect in my book. And i'm not a lawyer, I am an expert witness on tactics, training, etc. I have worked for defense lawyers and I've worked for prosecuting attorneys.

Quote:

Oh, this robber has every right to be there tooo. Oh, the robber was just minding his own bussiness when this man "attacked him" Come on.

Yes, let's "come on." You've now added elements of darkness, walking alone, threatening behavior, and robbery to the first presentation in an attempt to make your positon better. If the position is good you shouldn't need to add all these things to try and justify an action, IMO.

I fail to see either of those qualfiers in the scenario as first posted.

I fail to see where it says those qualifiers aren't the case. The scenario as presented is far to vague to say one way or the other the proper course of action. You can't say "He's minding his own business" because the context of the event is not included.

Let's say, for example (this could be the scenario, since it doesn't say that it isn't) that it's 1 AM, in the middle of a large, empty parking lot. You are near one corner, with no possible destination behind you, when the guy starts walking toward you. After being warned, and as he continues to proceed, I don't see him as "minding his own business", because at that point, he is not respecting your decent, understandable request. Even at that point, however, you can't say one way or the other if it would be alright to draw or not. I would suggest at least some measure of avoidance first.

Let's say separately, for example, that it's noon at a mall parking lot. You've got the mall behind you when a guy is coming toward you. You yell a warning, but it's awful noisy, and he might not be able to hear you. There are lots of bystanders who don't seem concerned. The parking lot is very crowded. My take on this is that the guy seems like he's minding his own business.

My point is, these are two very different events, but both fit the description given by alzika equally. Therefore, it's very difficult to come to conclusions about the event at all, until at least a few more details are included. I stand by my previous post.

But thta is not how things work. You base responses on the information given, not on what might be the case. The information given is quite simple. I agree that it would be nice to have lots more info, but the scenarion as offered gives no indication of many of the things some are using to justify a very questionable response, IMO.

Quote:

I stand by my previous post.

And I agree with your previous post. My point of contention is with those who keep having to add qualifiers to defend their position, as it indicates their position is questionable given the information that is available. Here is the scenario again:
"a guy is walking through parking lot and notices someone shady walking towards him. he tells the guy to stop and the guy continues to slowly walk towards him. at this point, the weapon is drawn."
Given that information and no other, I would suggest the drawing is not only unneccesary, but quite possibly illegal.

This part of my previous post is part of a much larger post. If one reads the whole thing, they will find that it is not on either side and was made solely to point out the fact that you can't say whether it was alright to draw or not! By saying that they guy was "minding his own business", you are adding the qualifier that he was minding his own business! It is impossible to tell! That conclusion can only be made based on the context. You can say that he "may be minding his own business", but that doesn't tell you anything.

EDIT: I'm not specifically saying that you said "minding his own business" and by using "you" I didn't mean to refer directly to David Armstrong. I was more just speaking in my own style. Please keep this edit in mind before quoting specific parts of my post. "You" was meant to refer to people in general, and "minding his own business" was meant to refer to saying that kind of thing.

__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!

Last edited by BuckHammer; February 14, 2009 at 03:15 PM.
Reason: clarification, guard against misinterpretation.

As David Armstrong has pointed out, there is no reason to characterize him as a "bad guy," and if you have drawn, you may be adjudged to be the bad guy.

Quote:

You have commanded him to stop.

Your authority for giving another citizen such a command would be... ?

Quote:

He has not so you have a reasonable fear for your life or health. Shoot him.

How would you successfully articulate, and convince others, that you had reason to believe that your use of deadly force was immediately necessary to protect yourself against the other person's unlawful use of deadly force or to prevent his imminent commission of acts involving the felonious use of force or threats of force against you? Here's the relevant part of the Texas Penal Code:

Quote:

Sec. 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery

Here are some things worth printing and studying carefully, too lengthy to paste text here but very worthwhile. A person not aware of the laws may have a lot of time to study these when it is too late:

Some thoughts from a lay person: In Texas you have no legal responsibility to retreat. However, the other person has every right to walk right by you. If he gets very close and does then attack, you may find yourself in a very dangerous situation.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.